asx listing list, page-15

"So let me get this right , your substantiation is put simply, just your view ?"

- My substantiation for not merely 'downramping', yes. That is exactly what I said initially. It is my view, which I've gone on to explain how it's derived.


"You have no idea on the intricate detail and volume P1 had to simplify and remove so that not only ASIC could understand it but get It through within the time frame."

- Firstly, how one earth would you know such details, unless you have an affiliation with P1.

Secondly, You try and suggest the company did what it had to simply to enable ASIC to understand it. I don't buy that for one second.

The reality is, which it seems plainly obvious now that you clearly have no idea off, the amendments that P1 inevitably had to make to the prospectus at the request of ASIC was as such because it not only would not have conformed to the requirements set out by ASIC but possibly even been ineligible to being with.


"your not a holder that's been reading these threads for the last 12 months or so.. So when I say it's a lot more than two three at most, that's what it is!"

- Um it's 'you're' not 'your' BTW, and again, Yeah I have been reading these threads for many months now.
Non holders are capable of reading back from certain dates FYI.
Hence, you saying 'that's what is!' is clearly unfounded and in all likelihood, incorrect.


"I think your forgetting where these potential funds are coming from btw..."

- Again, since you're a stickler for spelling, it's "you're" not "your", and yes I am forgetting, please remind me, where are these 'potential funds' supposedly coming from?